Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
guest_
· 4 years ago
· FIRST
Is this the same one from 2018-2019 or is this a new one? Now- the lady in 2018-19 I actually have to give SOME benefit of doubt in sympathy. I know. Hear me out. It’s about more than meat. There are two sides to the story- the neighbors say that they have just been living their lives as anyone else might, and haven’t done anything excessive: that the woman suing is just outrageous. The woman suing- her side of the story is that her neighbors routinely are very loud and inconsiderate. That they smoke right outside her properties Windows, have thoughtless gatherings, and the children make excessive noise. Both sides agree the kids make noise. They are kids. The woman suing however claimed that they would often do these things- including playing basketball at all hours including late into the night. Her side is that she’s tried to talk to the neighbors numerous tones and the neighbors not only dismissed her- but then intentionally set about doing things specifically to bother her.
guest_
· 4 years ago
The neighbors say they grill meat sometimes. That’s their right. I have to agree that it is a persons right to cook their food wether you find what they cook appealing or not. BUT- the woman claims that they would literally place the grill strategically so the smoke would waft to her home, and just grill things on it like cheap fish or meat to generate the smell- constantly or almost all the time sometimes- not just for a party or at lunch/breakfast/dinner time.
1
guest_
· 4 years ago
Who is telling the truth? Does she live next door to thoughtless and vindictive people out to get her back, or is she a nut job who expects her neighbors to not cook or play or live in their home and make any sign they are there? I personally suspect there is some middle ground or overlap. She could be TOTALLY unhinged. I’ve seen it, even had neighbors like that. But- I suspect there’s a little truth to both sides- probably more to one than another- but which side is more truthful?
Show All
guest_
· 4 years ago
We don’t know. We see a headline: “woman sues neighbors over cooking meat” and we assume she’s unreasonable, that she’s a Vegan “Karen” and we already have made up our minds. But- her allegations, let’s pretend they were 100% real. They’d be a bit hard to prove wouldn’t they? How do you prove what you can smell in your home, or prove that your neighbors are doing things intentionally to upset you? Of course- inconsiderate people aren’t generally criminal. It is only criminal when someone can prove that some line has been crossed- playing your music at a volume a neighbor an hear isn’t criminal for example- but if it gets loud enough, it can be. And of one were to be chronically and intentionally inconsiderate as a pattern directed at causing a specific person grief- when does that become harassment?
guest_
· 4 years ago
What I am saying is that her case is very hard to prove, but not being able to prove it doesn’t disprove it. Regardless, where the behavior of another person isn’t clearly criminal- whatever problem you have with another person generally isn’t one courts want to get involved with. Courts aren’t baby sitters. They handle disputes of law- so even disruptive or malicious behavior isn’t generally a matter for the court unless you can prove it breaks some law.
guest_
· 4 years ago
Case in point- most countries have had to pass “cyber stalking” “cyber bullying” and all sorts of privacy laws such as “anti Doxxing” laws because existing laws never considered the severity of consequence or even the possibility someone would do those things. We’ve seen in numerous countries that things like “anti discrimination” laws have needed addendums and bulwarks and such because of the myriad of ways that one can circumvent the intent of these laws without breaking the letter of the law. Harassment and stalking laws have seen huge changes world wide in the past few decades alone as the dangers have been recognized and the methods to subvert them have evolved.
guest_
· 4 years ago
And of course- we’ve seen for “good and evil” symbols and words and more coopted to allow the communication of messages that are forbidden or not accepted in society- from the use of Winnie the Pooh as a stand in for the leader of communist China, to the use of colors to symbolize entire movements in politics. That is of course nothing new- but it speaks to the core of the issue.
guest_
· 4 years ago
Online you’ll still find arguments over whether Pepe the frog is or was a white supremacist symbol. We do know Pepe has been used by those groups and for their messages- but what he represents as a “symbol” is a bit in the eye of the beholder- and that works best for these things. The cunning won’t use a “secret symbol” that everyone knows. There must be plausible deniability. This works in harassment too, or discrimination. Being able to get away with bending rules is a skill that often separates the successful from the less so.
guest_
· 4 years ago
So finishing up- I don’t know if this lady is crazy and just being unreasonable on what she expects from her neighbors- or if the neighbors really are holy terrors to her; or if it’s some balance of the two. It’s a dispute between neighbors. The court didn’t want to be involved, and in my opinion no one else probably should be either. If she really is just a tw%t- her punishment is living next to her neighbors and causing herself to get all wound up and suffer over people just living their lives. If she’s not a tw^t- torturing her more seems wrong. Either way she’s already obviously suffering- so I don’t see a need to add to it. It’s not righteous to torture the wrong. It just makes us wrong too.
mrfahrenheit
· 4 years ago
iirc, this was in Australia, and she may actually have a case (note that I am not an expert in the Australian legal system, because it's an absolute mess)
